Cover not available

Article published In: Functions of Language
Vol. 30:3 (2023) ► pp.320–348

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Cardinal direction judgment based on the integration of spatial reference frames in different languages

 | Inner Mongolia Normal UniversityHohhot | Yulin UniversityYulin
 | Inner Mongolia Normal UniversityHohhot | Hulunbuir UniversityHulunbuir
 | Inner Mongolia Art CollegeHohhot
 | Inner Mongolia Normal UniversityHohhot
 | Inner Mongolia Normal UniversityHohhot
 | Inner Mongolia Normal UniversityHohhot | Inner Mongolia Minzu UniversityTongliao
Published online: 12 December 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22038.xu
Abstract
This study investigates how integrated egocentric and environmental reference frames influence direction determination and cardinal direction judgments in L1 speakers of Mongolian and Mandarin. The results show that in direction determination, Mandarin participants’ integrated frame of reference is “front-north, back-south, left-west, and right-east.” By contrast, Mongolian participants use two modes of integrated spatial representation: “front-south, back-north, left-east, and right-west” and “front-north, back-south, left-west, and right-east”. This behavior points to influences from the participants’ dominant and non-dominant languages. Mongolian and Mandarin participants showed a north advantage in cardinal direction judgment tasks with a “front-north” response configuration. Whereas Mandarin participants consistently showed a north advantage effect, Mongolian participants showed a south advantage effect in the “front-south” configuration. This suggests that in addition to the long-recognized difference in north-south/east-west axis preference, a north-south axis specification where south was the normative direction instead of north can result from cultural and linguistic influence. The results corroborate the idea that language affects the integration of spatial reference frames, lending support to linguistic relativism.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Experiment 1: The linguistic impact on direction determination
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Material
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Results
    • 2.5Discussion
  • 3.Experiment 2: The linguistic impact on a CDJ task
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Material
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Results
    • 3.5Discussion
  • 4.General discussion
    • 4.1Impact of language on reference frames
    • 4.2Impact of language on the varied advantage effect in CDJ tasks
    • 4.3Impact of bilingualism
  • Declarations of Interest
  • Ethics statements
  • References
References (60)
References
Abarbanell, Linda. 2007. Linguistic flexibility in frame of reference use among adult Tseltal (Mayan) speakers. Paper presented at the 81st Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Anaheim, CA, 4–7 January 2007.
Bateer, Cao D. 2014. Mongolian spatial topological relations. Minority Language of China 31. 55–67.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bochynskaa, Agata, Mila Vulchanovaa, Valentin Vulchanova & Barbara Landauc. 2000. Spatial language difficulties reflect the structure of intact spatial representation: Evidence from high-functioning autism. Cognitive Psychology 1161. e101249. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen & Stephen C. Levinson. 2011. Framing whorf: A response to Li et al. (2011). Unpublished manuscript. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo. Available online at [URL] (accessed 31–10–2023).
Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43(1). 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1993a. Linguistic and nonlinguistic coding of spatial arrays: Explorations in Mayan cognition. Nijmegen Working Papers of the Cognitive Anthropology Research Group 241. 1–60. Available online at [URL] (accessed 31–10–2023).
. 1993b. ‘Uphill’ and ‘Downhill’ in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 31. 46–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brunyé, Tad T., Caroline R. Mahoney, Aaron L. Gardony & Holly A. Taylor. 2010. North is up(hill): Route planning heuristics in real-world environments. Memory & Cognition 38(6). 700–712. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel. 1991. Consciousness explained. Boston, MA: Brown.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emreözgen, Emre & Lan R. L. Davies. 2002. Acquisition of categorical color perception: A perceptual learning approach to the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 131(4). 477–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1975. The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franklin, Nancy & Barbara Tversky. 1990. Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 119(1). 63–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, Asli Özyürek, Ozge Gürcanli & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2013. Spatial language facilitates spatial cognition: evidence from children who lack language input. Cognition 1271. 318–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.). 2003. Language in mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton A. & Micheal P. Kaschak. 2003. Neuroimaging studies of language production and comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology 54(1). 91–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gleitman, Lila & Anna Papafragou. 2005. Language and thought. In Keith J. Holyoak & Robert G. Morrison (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning, 633–661. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter. 2004. Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science 306(5695). 496–499. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gravetter, Frederick J. & Larry B. Wallnau. 2016. Statistics for the behavioral sciences, 10th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gugerty, Leo & Johnell Brooks. 2001. Seeing where you are heading: Integrating environmental and egocentric reference frames in cardinal direction judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 7(3). 251–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Reference-frame misalignment and cardinal direction judgments: Group differences and strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 10(2). 75–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. & Stephen C. Levinson. 1996. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haun, Daniel B. M., Christian J. Rapold, Gabriele Janzen & Stephen C. Levinson. 2011. Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition covary across cultures. Cognition 1191. 70–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haun, Daniel B. M., Christian J. Rapold, Josep Call, Gabriele Janzen & Stephen C. Levinson. 2006. Cognitive cladistics and cultural override in hominid spatial cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(46). 17568–17573. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haun, Daniel B. M. & Christian J. Rapold. 2009. Variation in memory for body movements across cultures. Current Biology 19(23). 1068–1069. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyde, Daniel C., Nathan Winkler-Rhoades, Sang-Ah Lee, Veronique Izard, Kevin A. Shapiro & Elizabeth S. Spelke. 2011. Spatial and numerical abilities without a complete natural language. Neuropsychologia 491. 924–936. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in linguistic diversity. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1998. Studying spatial conceptualization across cultures: Anthropology and cognitive science. Ethos 26(1). 7–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & David Wilkins (eds.). 2006. Grammars of space. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., Sotaro Kita, Daniel B. M. Haun & Björn H. Rasch. 2002. Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition 84(2). 155–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1996. Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Cross-linguistic evidence. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel & Merrill F. Garrett (eds.), Language and space, 109–169. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Peggy & Lila Gleitman. 2002. Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83(3). 265–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Peggy, Linda Abarbanell & Anna Papafragou. 2005. Spatial Reasoning Skills in Tenejapan Mayans. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Stresa, 21–23 July 2005.
Li, Peggy & Linda Abarbanell. 2019. Alternative spin on phylogenetically inherited spatial reference frames. Cognition 1911. e103983. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Lihong, Jijia Zhang & Huiping Wang. 2005. The effect of spatial language habits on people’s spatial cognition. Acta Psychologica Sinica 37(4). 469–475. [URL]
Logan, Gordon D. & Daniel Sadler. 1996. A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations: Language, speech, and communication. In Stephen C. Levinson (ed.), Explorations in linguistic diversity, 375–395. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lucy, John. 1992. Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Majid, Asifa, Melissa Bowerman, Sotaro Kita, Daniel B. M. Haun & Stephen C. Levinson. 2004. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(3). 108–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marghetis, Tyler, Melanie McComsey & Kensy Cooperrider. 2020. Space in hand and mind: Gesture and spatial frames of reference in bilingual Mexico. Cognitive Science 44(12). e12920. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mishra, Ramesh C. & Pierre R. Dasen. 2005. Spatial language and cognitive development in India: An urban/rural comparison. In Wolfgang Friedlmeier, Pradeep Chakkarath & Beate Schwarz (eds.), Culture and human development: The importance of cross-cultural research to the social sciences, 153–179. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, Timothy P., Björn Rump & Steffen Werner. 2003. Egocentric and geocentric frames of reference in memory of large-scale space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10(3). 589–595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mou, Weimin, Kan Zhang & Timothy P. McNamara. 2004. Frames of reference in spatial memories acquired from language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 301. 171–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pica, Pierre, Cathy Lemer, Véronique Izard & Stanislas Dehaene. 2004. Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigenous group. Science 306(5695). 499–503. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1994. The language instinct. New York, NY: Morrow. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pederson, Eric, Eve Danziger, David Wilkins, Stephen Levinson, Sotaro Kita & Gunter Senft. 1998. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74(3). 557–589. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pyers, Jennie, Anna Shusterman, Ann Senghas, Elizabeth S. Spelke & Karen Emmorey. 2010. Evidence from an emerging sign language reveals that language supports spatial cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(27). 12116–12120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberson, Debi, Ian R. L. Davies & Jules Davidoff. 2000. Colour categories are not universal: Replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology General 1291. 369–398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York, NY: Harcourt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shapero, Joshua A. 2017. Does environmental experience spatial cognition? Frames of reference among Ancash Quechua speakers (Peru). Cognitive Science 41(5). 1274–1298. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shusterman, Anna & Peggy Li. 2016. A framework for work on frames of reference. In David Barner & Andrew S. Baron (eds.), Core knowledge and conceptual change, 191–208. New York, NY: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tian, Feng & Yurong Jin. 2009. Cultural connotation of Mongolian locational words. Journal of Inner Mongolia national university (Social Sciences edition) 61. 37–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vygotsky, Lev. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wassmann, Jurg & Pierre R. Dasen. 1998. Balinese spatial orientation: Some empirical evidence for moderate linguistic relativity. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(1). 689–711. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickens, Christopher D., Chia-Chin Liang & Tyler Prevett. 1996. Electronic maps for terminal area navigation: Effects of frame of reference and dimensionality. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 6(3). 241–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickens, Christopher D. & Justin G. Hollands. 2000. Engineering psychology and human performance, 3rd edn. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin L. 1956. Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Kan, Weimin Mou & Sumei Guo. 2000. Experiment proof of two-stage model in searching imagined space. Acta Psychologica Sinica 32(1). 40–44. [URL]
Zhang, Jijia & Lihong Liu. 2007. More on the effects of habit spatial terms on spatial cognition. Journal of Psychological Science 21. 359–361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhou, Ronggang & Kan Zhang. 2004. Visuospatial relations judgment based on clue. Acta Psychologica Sinica 36(2). 127–132. [URL]
. 2005. The cardinal direction judgments in integrating environmental and egocentric reference frames. Acta Psychologica Sinica 37(3). 298–307. [URL]
. 2008. How information presentation affect absolute direction judgments based on spatial reference frames. Acta Psychologica Sinica 40(11). 1137–1148. [URL]
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue